From: Jeff Davis (jrd1415@yahoo.com)
Date: Sat Dec 21 2002 - 20:22:22 MST
This is in response to a MaxPlumm BBS message
forwarded by Michael Dickey.
In his message MaxPlumm misquotes, misinterprets,
misattributes, and assigns meanings unsupported by the
text and unintended by the writer. The result is a
tangled mess unqjust barely resembling a coherent
argument.
> Jeff, ...I must
> take issue with a large portion of your argument.
<snip>
> http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/world/A0861793.html
>
> Note the following excerpt:
>
> In Mar., 1946, France signed an agreement with Ho
Chi
> Minh, recognizing Vietnam as a free state within the
> Indochina federation and the French Union. ..."
>
> # I find it fascinating that you, or more
> specifically your source, cut off
> the statement here. In full, it continues
****IT DOES NOT CONTINUE**** as you state. You cite
an entirely different source. Everyone makes
mistakes, but this subject is difficult enough without
blunt misattribution.
> # You have previously stated that the 1946 agreement
> that Ho Chi Minh signed with Jean Sainteny was the
> legally binding force with regard to Vietnam,
Quote me if you wish. And then offer interpretations
of the quote if you wish. But please refrain from
putting words in my mouth. I made no such comment. I
referenced the document to show what was going on at
one moment in time. The document is a document, and
as such is regarded by various persons in a manner of
their choosing. The document had some force and
effect. Exactly what, is subject to interpretation.
You state above, about the document: "the agreement
that you base your assertions upon was never ratified
by the French government..."
It is my impression that ordinarily when a governement
gives its representative in a negotiation the power to
make an agreement, then the agreement is binding. At
least to the degree that any government considers
itself bound by any agreement it signs.
> Yet here, you acknowledge the legitimacy of the 1949
> Elysees Agreement between Bao Dai and French
> President Vincent Auriol,
I didn't even mention--much less acknowledge any
possibility of legitimacy regarding--that instrument
of recalcitrant colonialism.
> which established that
> Tonkin, Annam, and Cochinchina were part of Vietnam
> in addition to acknowledging Bao Dai as
> chief of state.
Huh?! Me, recognize the legitimacy of Bao Dai, a
French puppet?! I never did any such thing.
First, the French recognize and agree to the
independence of Vietnam--and by signing with Ho,
suggest that Ho's govt was at least a legitimate
candidate for that govt--pending a series of
referenda--a country whose territory up till then was
excepted by all as composed of the three regions.
Following this the French try to separate Cochin China
from the recognized territory of Vietnam and make it a
separate entity. Either to salvage something from a
never-desired agreement, or--and this seems more
likely to me--to intentionally quash the agreement.
Ho objects and war ensues.
> I should note this agreement was ratified by the
> French government on March 12, 1949. Given that we
> both apparently agree that Bao Dai was a legitimate
> head of state,
There you go again, presuming to speak for me. Bao
Dai was the puppet of a colonial regime. He was a
"head of state" indeed, but neither a "legitimate"
head of state nor a head of a "legitimate" state.
> Additionally, when one reads the text of a letter
> President Auriol sent to
> Bao Dai shortly thereafter, one finds that the
> President refers specifically
> to:
>
>
> 1- The reuniting of South Vietnam to the rest of the
> Empire will be
> accomplished according to the following procedure:
> Vote by the French Parliament of the law creating
> the Representative
> Territorial Assembly of South Vietnam provided for
> by Article 77 of the
> French Constitution and charged to give its opinion
> on the changing of the
> status of the territory in question(18).
> Vote by the Representative Territorial Assembly of
> South Vietnam on the
> changing of the status referred to above and the
> integration of South
> Vietnam with the rest of the Empire(19).
> Vote by the French Parliament of the law provided
> for in Article 75 of the
> French Constitution sanctioning the changing of the
> status of Cochin
> China(20).
> The National Assembly will be consulted according to
> the procedure of
> urgency as soon as the Representative Territorial
> Assembly of South Vietnam
> has made its opinion known.
>
> Note, clearly, a reference to a South Vietnam in
> 1949. As opposed to 1954,
> when you claim it was dreamed up.
>
>
> > when
> > one considers that
> > population alone would've guaranteed the
> Communists
> > victory. With a
> > population of 17 million to the South's 13
> million,
> > the Communists simply
> > could've herded more unwilling participants to the
> > voting booth to insure
> > victory. Forgive my skepticism regarding the
> North's
> > intentions, but perhaps
> > you could provide an example of a fair and honest
> > Communist election?
>
> "Now the prior error pretty much invalidates
> everything
> that follows--anything premised on separate north
> and
> south prior to the accords--but regarding the
> election, you must take note of the fact that
> representatives from India, Canada, and Poland made
> up
> the International Control Comission, charged with
> carrying out the peace agreement, and woulda,
> shoulda,
> coulda been there to oversee the elections. In
> addition there ain't no one on the planet not being
> spoon fed in an Alzheimer's ward who doesn't
> acknowledge that Ho, as the dominant political
> personality and the 'hero' who won independence for
> his country, was going to sweep those elections.
> Fairly."
# Again, if there are any errors or lack of facts
here, it is clearly on your side of the discussion.
So you assert, but the documents--but more to the
point, the untortured facts--tell another story.
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:50 MST